Filed: Apr. 26, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7517 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. WILLIAM ALFRED PRESCOD, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:99-cr-00029-RLV-1) Submitted: April 21, 2011 Decided: April 26, 2011 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willia
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7517 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. WILLIAM ALFRED PRESCOD, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:99-cr-00029-RLV-1) Submitted: April 21, 2011 Decided: April 26, 2011 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7517 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. WILLIAM ALFRED PRESCOD, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:99-cr-00029-RLV-1) Submitted: April 21, 2011 Decided: April 26, 2011 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Alfred Prescod, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Alfred Prescod, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his various post-conviction motions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Prescod, No. 5:99-cr-00029-RLV-1 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 18, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
